High-Speed Rail

For brevity and simplicity, let's deal with round figures and orders of magnitude. As well:

• The science and impacts of the climate crisis are also well known and widely available on the WEB. Physics and the laws of nature prevail. 
• The essentials of land stewardship and the needs of nature are also well established, even though they are not considered in an extractive, consumer-based economy. 

A 100 billion (100 billion is 100,000,000,000 - a 1 followed by 11 zeros) dollar HSR system, ALTO,  is proposed to serve the population centres of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. The project is advertised as an essential nation-building exercise for a population of about 40 million. There are no stops in between. 

Clearly, the proposal has been circulating in the back rooms of power for years. It came as a surprise to me, presented as a fait accompli, complete with legislation designed to override the rights of Canadians everywhere along the proposed routes. The "tick the box" consultation occupies a period of just a couple of months. The public consultation meetings have received critical reviews from community members and local officials. They have been a flashpoint for opposition and concerns regarding transparency, full of "smoke and mirrors". 

Basic questions need answers. 

• Who asked for this grandiose project costing an equally grandiose sum?
• Who will the finished project actually benefit when and if it is completed by 2045?
• Why is legislation that tramples over the rights of people and the environment required for a nation-building project? 
• How will political and corporate corruption be prevented from escalating the costs even further? Consider almost countless recent high-profile debacles across Canada. 
• What will be the actual environmental costs and impacts in light of the very real implications of the climate crisis? 

The impacts of high-speed physical travel, either by HSR or air, are beyond what Earth can sustain. Current rates of consumption will require the resources of two Earths by 2030 (there are multiple references for this, easily found by a Web search)

The following summarizes ExxonMobil scientists' predictions of climate change based on their oil and gas activities. Earth is currently in the verification stage of those forecasts - the red line. The take away message here is that large corporations are most interested in corporate profits. 

The following is the best current forecast, but with the vertical axis now expanded to consider 5 Celsius degrees of warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Existential issues and the Sixth Mass Extinction kick in at 1.5 Celsius. 

The High-Speed Rail proposal smacks of an Industrial Revolution solution to a problem that does not exist, reminiscent of the deeds of the Family Compact in the early 1800s. History must not be repeated. 

The argument has been made that Canada is the only G7 nation without a high-speed rail system. That is a good thing. The reality of a sustainable future is not found in speed or travel, ignoring the impacts on nature and the environment, while serving the whims of the very few at the expense of everything else. The positive power of the World Wide Web actually serves the needs for communication at the speed of light. Consider this composition. 

The sustainable future for Canada will best be found by a million (1 million in numbers is written as 1,000,000 - a '1' followed by six zeros) smaller projects funded by a hundred thousand dollars each, in full consideration of nature and the climate crisis. One in 40 Canadians could head up a project... imagine the potential for real nation building in harmony with nature

Consider the achievements of environmental groups which rely on donations and the efforts of volunteers. There are many such organizations like CPAWS, Conservation Authorities, and Land Stewardship Groups that can really make a positive difference. 

Transport 2000 had the answers for rail travel back in the 1970s. Rail can indeed be sustainable, but there is no need for high speed, especially given the impacts on vital nature corridors (See The A2A Collaborative). The rail system should be twinned, with fares kept economically affordable. 

Simply, the grandiose sum of 100 billion can be divided into many smaller projects that would benefit the nation and nature from coast to coast to coast, instead of a single unsustainable and destructive project for just the 2025 version of the Family Compact. 

Warmest regards, and keep your paddle in the water,

Phil Chadwick